Russell C McGregor Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Bakers always have a choice to refuse to bake cakes for anyone they don't want to bake for by either facing the legal consequences of violating the law, seeking to change/maintain public accommodations laws, or changing professions. Because anyone who doesn't want to be involved in a "same sex wedding" doesn't deserve to have a livelihood. 1
ttribe Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 Just now, Ahab said: For the purposes of our discussion let's just talk as if they do exist. Or as if they did exist before particular laws forced them out of business. So, your discussion has no practical purpose. It's an academic (and largely rhetorical) activity. Got it. Carry on, then.
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 17 minutes ago, USU78 said: Gentleman that I am, I shall cease repeating myself beyond: "If it ain't part of the rite, why make such a fuss?" Have at it. That's just too much of an open question. Some people fuss just to fuss about something.
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: So, your discussion has no practical purpose. It's an academic (and largely rhetorical) activity. Got it. Carry on, then. You got what I did not give you. I haven't placed any limits to the practical applications of what I have been talking about. But go ahead and carry on with what you got.
Gray Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Ahab said: Then I suspect that in your mind the wedding cake is not a part of the wedding ceremony. Perhaps you think the entire ceremony is over when both parties say "I do" or when the officiator pronounces them both as husband and wife... or husband and husband, or wife and wife, or whatever. But some other people, who don't think as you do, don't think the ceremony is over at that point. Some think of the cutting of the wedding cake as part of the wedding ceremony, maybe even up to the part when people throw rice at the married couple. I've been talking about bakers who consider the wedding cake as a part of the wedding ceremony when they are used. The wedding ceremony IS over when they say I do, or in the LDS context it's over in the temple, before the reception where cake is served. Cutting the cake is not part of the ceremony, but it is one of many western wedding traditions, like throwing the bouquet, smashing wine glasses, tying cans to the car, throwing the garter belt or throwing rice. Traditions, but not part of the ceremony. The only product for sale that is critical to most wedding ceremonies is wedding rings. Edited April 14, 2016 by Gray
mtomm Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Gray said: The wedding ceremony IS over when they say I do, or in the LDS context it's over in the temple, before the reception where cake is served. Cutting the cake is not part of the ceremony, but it is one of many western wedding traditions, like throwing the bouquet, smashing wine glasses, tying cans to the car, throwing the garter belt or throwing rice. Traditions, but not part of the ceremony. The only product for sale that is critical to most wedding ceremonies is wedding rings. Rings are only tradition. The two things that are not optional is the services of an officiant and the marriage license. Edited April 14, 2016 by mtomm
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, Gray said: The wedding ceremony IS over when they say I do, or in the LDS context it's over in the temple, before the reception where cake is served. Cutting the cake is not part of the ceremony, but it is one of many western wedding traditions, like throwing the bouquet, smashing wine glasses, tying cans to the car, throwing the garter belt or throwing rice. Traditions, but not part of the ceremony. The only product for sale that is critical to most wedding ceremonies is wedding rings. Share your idea of what a wedding ceremony is then with a baker who believes the cake is a part of a wedding ceremony and see how far that will get you, or him. Who knows, maybe the baker would believe you and agree to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding just as willingly as for any other kind of wedding. Or maybe he still wouldn't want to be involved anyway even if technically the wedding cake wasn't a part of the wedding ceremony.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 14, 2016 Author Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, rockpond said: I think the baker should be allowed to refuse on the grounds of person freedom and liberty. I struggle to understand it as a matter of religious freedom: a baker bakes cakes... so baking a cake for a gay couple and their friends/loved ones doesn't seem like a violation of their religious freedom. So a person loses his "personal freedom and liberty" the moment he cites a religious motivation for how he chooses to exercise it? Have you really thought this through? Edited to add: I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding you; please hasten to assure me that I am. Edited April 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 3 hours ago, Ahab said: You left out the word "participating". And yes the wedding cake is just as much a part of any wedding where a wedding cake is used as the sacrament emblems are part of the sacrament that uses them. Nice analogy there. I guess the makers of Orowheat bread participated in my ward's sacrament last week. Someone should inform them of the covenants they are now under. 4
rockpond Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So a person loses his "personal freedom and liberty" the moment he cites a religious motivation for how he chooses to exercise it? Have you really thought this through? Edited to add: I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding you; please hasten to assure me that I am. You have misunderstood me. I've said it a few times now: I don't believe the baker should be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple. That's a matter of personal liberty. It is not, however, a matter of religious freedom since baking a wedding cake is not a religious rite. Make sense?
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: You have misunderstood me. I've said it a few times now: I don't believe the baker should be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple. That's a matter of personal liberty. It is not, however, a matter of religious freedom since baking a wedding cake is not a religious rite. Make sense? I think I understand you, and from a certain perspective I agree with the idea that a baker choosing to bake (or in this case not bake) a wedding cake is not a matter of religious freedom. That perspective flows from the idea that a baker choosing to not bake a wedding cake has nothing to with anything religious, however, which is not always the case, because sometimes the baker's choice to not bake a wedding cake has something to do with the baker's religion. ... again, sometimes it does have something to do with the baker's religion. Can you agree on that point yet or do you still need somebody to explain this to you for you to be able to understand this? My Momma always has had a way to explain things so that I could understand them.
The Nehor Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Because anyone who doesn't want to be involved in a "same sex wedding" doesn't deserve to have a livelihood. Not if they are going to be that picky about their customers. Other religious objections based on actual commandments are generally respected. No one forces a Jewish who believes he must not be in a house with leavened bread one day a year must open their bakery that day. If there was a Cult of the Cursed Wedding Cake who believes that wedding cakes are the devil's favorite food and their bakery does not make wedding cakes (or devil's food cakes) then no law will force them to make one and violate their religious precepts. If your religious precepts require you to discriminate based on customers then they are not protected. More importantly the LDS faith has no such commandments. If God can allow his rain to fall on the just and unjust then I can sell cakes to the just and unjust. Plus the whole not serving gays thing seems to me to be more about 'sour grapes' that we lost then any real religious sentiment. It is the little child forced to share his toy grabbing another toy and insisting they do not have to share this one rather then any real violation of conscience. I am concerned about religious liberty but I think this kind of meaningless grandstanding is more likely to erode it then protect it. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Not if they are going to be that picky about their customers. Other religious objections based on actual commandments are generally respected. No one forces a Jewish who believes he must not be in a house with leavened bread one day a year must open their bakery that day. If there was a Cult of the Cursed Wedding Cake who believes that wedding cakes are the devil's favorite food and their bakery does not make wedding cakes (or devil's food cakes) then no law will force them to make one and violate their religious precepts. If your religious precepts require you to discriminate based on customers then they are not protected. More importantly the LDS faith has no such commandments. If God can allow his rain to fall on the just and unjust then I can sell cakes to the just and unjust. Plus the whole not serving gays thing seems to me to be more about 'sour grapes' that we lost then any real religious sentiment. It is the little child forced to share his toy grabbing another toy and insisting they do not have to share this one rather then any real violation of conscience. I am concerned about religious liberty but I think this kind of meaningless grandstanding is more likely to erode it then protect it. Except, Nehor, that nobody has refused to serve "gays" or tried to "discriminate based on customers." They have tried to discriminate based upon events. There was not one newly-minted felon -- not one -- who outright refused to serve "gays." Every single one of them was only objecting to contributing to a "same sex wedding." But then, of course, you know this. 1
The Nehor Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 Just now, Russell C McGregor said: Except, Nehor, that nobody has refused to serve "gays" or tried to "discriminate based on customers." They have tried to discriminate based upon events. There was not one newly-minted felon -- not one -- who outright refused to serve "gays." Every single one of them was only objecting to contributing to a "same sex wedding." But then, of course, you know this. And? This distinction means what? Who cares what event your product is used for? Why does that matter? Should a seller have that level of control in any case? What kind of control freak wants that kind of control? What kind of person is that obsessed with what EVENTS they provide supplies for? 2
Russell C McGregor Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: And? This distinction means what? Who cares what event your product is used for? Why does that matter? Should a seller have that level of control in any case? What kind of control freak wants that kind of control? What kind of person is that obsessed with what EVENTS they provide supplies for? Umm, how about the kind of people who provide not merely "supplies" but who do bespoke work for specific events? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 15, 2016 Author Posted April 15, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: You have misunderstood me. I've said it a few times now: I don't believe the baker should be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple. That's a matter of personal liberty. It is not, however, a matter of religious freedom since baking a wedding cake is not a religious rite. Make sense? I take your point, but I would counter that if the baker is religiously motivated in his decision, it thus becomes a matter of religious freedom. You don't get to decide for someone else what he or she can regard as a religious rite or a personal expression of religious belief or values. That's what the free-exercise clause is meant to protect against. Edited April 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I take your point, but I would counter that if the baker is religiously motivated in his decision, it thus becomes a matter of religious freedom. You don't get to decide for someone else what he or she can regard as a religious rite or a personal expression of religious belief or values. Whenever I see the "gay" lobby and their minions trying to look magnanimous when they reluctantly concede that someone's formal religious affiliation might require them to do (or not do) something or other, it is apparent that they see the whole argument as a conflict of compulsions. (And of course, for them, whatever compulsion serves their interests should be the overarching one.) But they fail to grasp the concept of someone acting according to conscience, not compulsion, when it comes to avoiding contaminating influences. It's almost as if they have no consciences of their own, and thus can only relate to people acting according to whatever compulsions they might be under. Hmmm... 2
california boy Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 7 hours ago, Anijen said: No it does not, however, there are exceptions that have been found Constitutionally permissible. Are the Amish above the law? No they are not. But the Amish have been exempted for religious reasons from paying unemployment, welfare benefits, or social security. Paying into these systems would go against their religious beliefs. Are they breaking the law? No. Are they being discriminatory? No, are they being discriminated against? No. is the religion of the Amish put them above the law? Well it looks that way. But they are not, because of the exception. But the religious baker is breaking the law. I say a bad law. A bad law not because of religion but because it forces compelled belief and if you don't comply here is a fine for $137,000.00 In almost all states students are compelled to attend school until they are 17. In some states such as Maine you cannot leave until 17 years old. Yet, for religious purposes are allowed exemption from those laws. The very reason they allow it is because many religions believe higher education will promote ideas counter to Christian values. Hmm, wasn't baking a cake counter to the Bakers Christian values? Well it seems the Amish religion is trumping law. So the US is now a theocracy? Thank goodness. Also wanted to add. I get very involved in the issues I talk about. If I have offended anyone, I apologize. You are wrong about the Amish receiving special treatment under the law. Every single thing you listed that the Amish do is available to every other citizen in this country no matter what their religious beliefs are or even if they have no religious beliefs. Anyone can opt out of social security if they are self employed and do not work for a company. When I started my own business, the option of opting out of Social Security was given to me. However if you once opt out of Social Security you can never later change your mind. You also loose any claim to benefits to any moneys you have already put into the system. Any citizen can homeschool their children. Many people leave high school before they graduate and before they reach the age of 17. And anyone in Oregon who discriminates in their business is subject to a fine. If the people of Oregon want to change the law, they are welcome to try. In this country, there is not a single law that can not be overturned. So no the Amish religion does not trump law. 1
california boy Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 6 hours ago, Ahab said: I reject your expression of sorrow that we do not live in a theocracy. I believe you really don't want to. And I believe that you and other such men as yourself are taking advantage of the legal system in our country by enacting laws that uphold unrighteous behavior. Laws that uphold same sex marriage and reject any display of rejection to same. I, on the other hand, would much rather live in a society that is governed by God's laws than the fallible and often evil laws of other less than such holy men as he is. And I show my desire to live by his laws even in the midst of such men as yourself. Men like yourself that uphold same sex marriage and even same sex sexual relations outside of any legal marriage while rejecting any display of rejection to same. Each of us shows whose laws we would rather follow by the laws that we actually live by, with our beliefs reflecting the type of people we are. You are right course. I am very thankful I do not live in a theocracy. I certainly respect and understand why you want to live under a different system of government that more conforms to your views. So what are you going to do about it? Whine on a discussion board that bakers are forced to comply with the law? It seems like the lazy way out. No one stopped North Carolina or Mississippi from passing a law that legally discriminates against gays. But that doesn't mean there aren't real consequences for passing these kinds of discrimination laws in the name of religious freedom. Not only will businesses and individuals refuse to do business in your state, you can also expect lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of those laws. Welcome to the United States. A country that lives by rule of law. Blame it on "the gays" if it makes you feel better. But in the end, the vast Americans support the idea of not being able to discriminate for any reason, including religious beliefs. 1
california boy Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I take your point, but I would counter that if the baker isWhen religiously motivated in his decision, it thus becomes a matter of religious freedom. You don't get to decide for someone else what he or she can regard as a religious rite or a personal expression of religious belief or values. That's what the free-exercise clause is meant to protect against. Scott, if you think that the constitution gives religion the right to discriminate, then why are you posting on a discussion board. Why aren't you bringing a lawsuit against the government for requiring businesses to discriminate when it violates their closely held religious beliefs. Quit your whining and do something about it. Challenge the civil rights laws. Take a page out of the LGBT play book. When they felt their constitutional rights were being withheld from them, they brought a case against the states that had such laws. It was a lot of work, but worth every bit of effort. 1
california boy Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: Whenever I see the "gay" lobby and their minions trying to look magnanimous when they reluctantly concede that someone's formal religious affiliation might require them to do (or not do) something or other, it is apparent that they see the whole argument as a conflict of compulsions. (And of course, for them, whatever compulsion serves their interests should be the overarching one.) But they fail to grasp the concept of someone acting according to conscience, not compulsion, when it comes to avoiding contaminating influences. It's almost as if they have no consciences of their own, and thus can only relate to people acting according to whatever compulsions they might be under. Hmmm... You too. Quit your whining and change the laws. If you think a wrong is being committed, you have ever right to bring your case before the courts. That is what they are there for. Use them. Until then, it is illegal for a business to discriminate in most states. This thread just becomes endless and nothing changes. I am sure most of us could write the response from the same reoccurring players. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 (edited) California Boy is right. Push-back can work: Quote It isn’t often that conservatives use the tactics of the Left, and how effective it’s now proved for the Catholic church: Telstra has quietly retreated from a public campaign pushing for same-sex marriage after it kowtowed to the Catholic Church, which threatened a boycott of companies involved in supporting a change to the definition of traditional unions. We need to do much, much more of this wherever we live. Edited April 15, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Ahab Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 22 minutes ago, california boy said: You are right course. I am very thankful I do not live in a theocracy. I certainly respect and understand why you want to live under a different system of government that more conforms to your views. So what are you going to do about it? Whine on a discussion board that bakers are forced to comply with the law? It seems like the lazy way out. No one stopped North Carolina or Mississippi from passing a law that legally discriminates against gays. But that doesn't mean there aren't real consequences for passing these kinds of discrimination laws in the name of religious freedom. Not only will businesses and individuals refuse to do business in your state, you can also expect lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of those laws. Welcome to the United States. A country that lives by rule of law. Blame it on "the gays" if it makes you feel better. But in the end, the vast Americans support the idea of not being able to discriminate for any reason, including religious beliefs. What will I do, you ask? I will base my actions on my religious beliefs. What are you going to do in response to what I do if or when you do not like what I do? And a hearty welcome to Earth to you too.
california boy Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: What will I do, you ask? I will base my actions on my religious beliefs. What are you going to do in response to what I do if or when you do not like what I do? And a hearty welcome to Earth to you too. Nothing as long as any laws passed don't infringe on my civil rights. If they do, then I will fight to keep those rights. 1
rockpond Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 3 hours ago, Ahab said: I think I understand you, and from a certain perspective I agree with the idea that a baker choosing to bake (or in this case not bake) a wedding cake is not a matter of religious freedom. That perspective flows from the idea that a baker choosing to not bake a wedding cake has nothing to with anything religious, however, which is not always the case, because sometimes the baker's choice to not bake a wedding cake has something to do with the baker's religion. ... again, sometimes it does have something to do with the baker's religion. Can you agree on that point yet or do you still need somebody to explain this to you for you to be able to understand this? My Momma always has had a way to explain things so that I could understand them. No, I don't agree but it isn't for lack of understanding what you've written. Because the baker chooses a religious reason for his refusal does not mean that his religious freedoms have been violated.
Recommended Posts